The study objective was to compare the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the RTI item bank (RTI-IB) and estimate interrater agreement using the RTI-IB within a systematic review on the cardiovascular ...safety of glucose-lowering drugs.
We tailored both tools and added four questions to the RTI-IB. Two reviewers assessed the quality of the 44 included studies with both tools, (independently for the RTI-IB) and agreed on which responses conveyed low, unclear, or high risk of bias. For each question in the RTI-IB (n=31), the observed interrater agreement was calculated as the percentage of studies given the same bias assessment by both reviewers; chance-adjusted interrater agreement was estimated with the first-order agreement coefficient (AC1) statistic.
The NOS required less tailoring and was easier to use than the RTI-IB, but the RTI-IB produced a more thorough assessment. The RTI-IB includes most of the domains measured in the NOS. Median observed interrater agreement for the RTI-IB was 75% (25th percentile p25 =61%; p75 =89%); median AC1 statistic was 0.64 (p25 =0.51; p75 =0.86).
The RTI-IB facilitates a more complete quality assessment than the NOS but is more burdensome. The observed agreement and AC1 statistic in this study were higher than those reported by the RTI-IB's developers.
Study Objective
To estimate the incidence and relative risk of a hospitalization or emergency visit for noninfectious liver injury in users of eight oral antimicrobials—amoxicillin, ...amoxicillin‐clavulanic acid, clarithromycin, cefuroxime, doxycycline, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, telithromycin—compared with nonusers of these antimicrobials.
Design
Retrospective, observational cohort study with a nested case‐control analysis.
Data Source
HealthCore Integrated Research Database.
Patients
Adults with continuous health plan enrollment for at least 6 months before study entry who had a new dispensing of a study antimicrobial between July 1, 2001, and March 31, 2009. Cases had diagnoses indicating noninfectious liver injury during follow‐up. To control for potentially confounding risk factors, 10 controls at risk for liver injury during follow‐up were matched to each case by age, sex, and event date (liver injury date of the case), and analyses were adjusted for medical history, concomitant drugs, and health care service use.
Measurements and Main Results
Two physician reviewers (blind to exposure) validated the cases. Among 1.3 million antimicrobial users, we identified 607 cases of liver injury, including 82 cases of severe hepatocellular injury and 11 cases of liver failure. Liver injury incidence in nonusers of study antimicrobials was 35/100,000 person‐years (95% confidence interval CI 29–42/100,000 person‐years). For valid cases, the adjusted relative risk among current users of multiple antimicrobials was 3.2 (95% CI 1.6–6.7). Levofloxacin had the highest relative risk for current single use (3.2, 95% CI 1.8–5.8). Relative risks were also elevated for amoxicillin‐clavulanic acid (2.5, 95% CI 1.3–5.0), doxycycline (2.5, 95% CI 1.2–5.2), moxifloxacin (2.3, 95% CI 1.1–4.7), and amoxicillin (2.3, 95% CI 1.1–4.7).
Conclusion
The results support a comparatively high adjusted relative risk of liver injury among patients exposed concurrently to multiple antimicrobials and modest elevations in the risk for several antimicrobials used alone; however, we found little evidence of any strong effect of commonly used antimicrobials on the risk of liver injury.
Background:
The risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications associated with the use of NSAIDs is a serious public health concern. The risk varies between individual NSAIDs; however, there is ...little information on the risk associated with some NSAIDs and on the impact of risk factors. These data are necessary to evaluate the benefit-risk of individual NSAIDs for clinical and health policy decision making. Within the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme, the Safety Of non-Steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) SOS project aims to develop decision models for regulatory and clinical use of individual NSAIDs according to their GI and cardiovascular safety.
Objective:
The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to provide summary relative risks (RR) of upper GI complications (UGIC) associated with the use of individual NSAIDs, including selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors.
Methods:
We used the MEDLINE database to identify cohort and case-control studies published between 1 January 1980 and 31 May 2011, providing adjusted effect estimates for UGIC comparing individual NSAIDs with non-use of NSAIDs. We estimated pooled RR and 95% CIs of UGIC for individual NSAIDs overall and by dose using fixed- and random-effects methods. Subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate methodological and clinical heterogeneity between studies.
Results:
A total of 2984 articles were identified and 59 were selected for data abstraction. After review of the abstracted information, 28 studies met the meta-analysis inclusion criteria. Pooled RR ranged from 1.43 (95% CI 0.65, 3.15) for aceclofenac to 18.45 (95% CI 10.99, 30.97) for azapropazone. RR was less than 2 for aceclofenac, celecoxib (RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.17, 1.81) and ibuprofen (RR 1.84; 95% CI 1.54, 2.20); 2 to less than 4 for rofecoxib (RR 2.32; 95% CI 1.89, 2.86), sulindac (RR 2.89; 95% CI 1.90, 4.42), diclofenac (RR 3.34; 95% CI 2.79, 3.99), meloxicam (RR 3.47; 95% CI 2.19, 5.50), nimesulide (RR 3.83; 95% CI 3.20, 4.60) and ketoprofen (RR 3.92; 95% CI 2.70, 5.69); 4–5 for tenoxicam (RR 4.10; 95% CI 2.16, 7.79), naproxen (RR 4.10; 95% CI 3.22, 5.23), indometacin (RR 4.14; 95% CI 2.91, 5.90) and diflunisal (RR 4.37; 95% CI 1.07, 17.81); and greater than 5 for piroxicam (RR 7.43; 95% CI 5.19, 10.63), ketorolac (RR 11.50; 95% CI 5.56, 23.78) and azapropazone. RRs for the use of high daily doses of NSAIDs versus non-use were 2-3 times higher than those associated with low daily doses.
Conclusions:
We confirmed variability in the risk of UGIC among individual NSAIDs as used in clinical practice. Factors influencing findings across studies (e.g. definition and validation of UGIC, exposure assessment, analysis of new vs prevalent users) and the scarce data on the effect of dose and duration of use of NSAIDs and on concurrent use of other medications need to be addressed in future studies, including SOS.
Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at high risk of heart failure. A summary of the effects of blood glucose-lowering drugs other than glitazones on the risk of heart failure in routine ...clinical practice is lacking. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on the risk of heart failure when using blood glucose-lowering drugs.
We systematically identified and reviewed cohort and case-control studies in which the main exposure of interest was noninsulin blood glucose-lowering medications in patients with T2DM. We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify publications meeting prespecified eligibility criteria. The quality of included studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the RTI item bank. Results were combined using fixed and random-effects models when at least 3 independent data points were available for a drug-drug comparison.
The summary relative risk of heart failure in rosiglitazone users versus pioglitazone users (95% CI) was 1.16 (1.05-1.28) (5 cohort studies). Heterogeneity was present (I2 = 66%). For new users (n = 4) the summary relative risk was 1.21 (1.14-1.30) and the heterogeneity was reduced (I2 = 31%);. The summary relative risk for rosiglitazone versus metformin was 1.36 (95% CI, 1.17-1.59) (n = 3). The summary relative risk (95% CI) of heart failure in sulfonylureas users versus metformin users was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.06-1.29) (5 cohort studies; I2 = 24%) and 1.22 (1.02-1.46) when restricted to new users (2 studies).Information on other comparisons was very scarce. Information on dose and duration of treatment effects was lacking for most comparisons. Few studies accounted for disease severity; therefore, confounding by indication might be present in the majority of the within-study comparisons of this meta-analysis.
Use of glitazones and sulfonylureas was associated with an increased risk of heart failure compared with metformin use. However, indication bias cannot be ruled out. Ongoing large multidatabase studies will help to evaluate the risk of heart failure in treated patients with diabetes, including those using newer blood glucose-lowering therapies.
The results of observational studies evaluating and comparing the cardiovascular safety of glitazones, metformin and sufonylureas are inconsistent.To conduct and evaluate heterogeneity in a ...meta-analysis of observational studies on the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes using non-insulin blood glucose-lowering drugs (NIBGLD).
We systematically identified and reviewed studies evaluating NIBGLD in patients with type 2 diabetes indexed in Medline, Embase, or the Cochrane Library that met prespecified criteria. The quality of included studies was assessed with the RTI item bank. Results were combined using fixed- and random-effects models, and the Higgins I(2) statistic was used to evaluate heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses by study quality were conducted.
The summary relative risk (sRR) (95% CI) of AMI for rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone was 1.13 (1.04-1.24) I(2) = 55%. In the sensitivity analysis, heterogeneity was reduced I(2) = 16%. The sRR (95% CI) of stroke for rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone was 1.18 (1.02-1.36) I(2) = 42%. There was strong evidence of heterogeneity related to study quality in the comparisons of rosiglitazone versus metformin and rosiglitazone versus sulfonylureas (I (2) ≥ 70%). The sRR (95% CI) of AMI for sulfonylurea versus metformin was 1.24 (1.14-1.34) I(2) = 41% and for pioglitazone versus metformin was 1.02 (0.75-1.38) I(2) = 17%. Sensitivity analyses decreased heterogeneity in most comparisons.
Sulfonylureas increased the risk of AMI by 24% compared with metformin; an imprecise point estimate indicated no difference in risk of AMI when comparing pioglitazone with metformin. The presence of heterogeneity precluded any conclusions on the other comparisons. The quality assessment was valuable in identifying methodological problems in the individual studies and for analysing potential sources of heterogeneity.
We conducted a cohort study of acute, noninfectious liver injury among oral antimicrobial users. Potential cases were identified in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRD(SM)) population ...between July 1, 2001, and March 31, 2009, using ICD-9-CM codes primarily for acute and subacute necrosis of the liver, hepatic coma, and unspecified hepatitis. Liver test results were used to confirm case status according to published criteria. Two physician reviewers experienced in studying acute liver injury (blinded to study drug exposures) evaluated data abstracted from hospital and emergency department records to validate potential cases. Of 715 potential cases having claims associated with any of the primary screening codes, 312 (44%) were valid cases, 108 (15%) were not cases, and 295 (41%) were of uncertain status (records inadequate for validation). Among potential cases with adequate medical records, the PPV for presence of any of the primary codes was 74% (95% CI, 70%-78%). The highest PPV for a single code was for acute and subacute necrosis of the liver (84%; 95% CI, 77%-90%). Evaluation of cases of noninfectious liver injury using hospital and emergency department medical records continues to represent the preferred approach in studies using insurance claims data.
PDF
